Burden of proof in customs seizure: Section 123 did not apply where police, not Customs, seized the goods first.

Section 123 of the Indian Customs Act applies only where Customs seizes goods in a reasonable belief that they are smuggled; a prior police seizure does not, by itself, trigger that burden-shifting rule. On the facts, Customs merely received the goods after the police seizure, and there was no material showing that the police acted on a reasonable belief of smuggling. The respondent's explanation was found plausible, and the circumstances did not justify invoking presumptions under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. Section 123 was therefore not attracted, the burden did not shift, and the prosecution failed to establish guilt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the burden under Section 123 of the Indian Customs Act, 1962 shifted to the respondent on the facts of the seizure, and whether the presumption under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act could be invoked to sustain the prosecution.

Analysis: Section 123 applies only when the goods are seized by the Customs authorities in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. Here, the seizure was initially made by the police, and the Customs authorities merely received the goods thereafter; there was no seizure by Customs within the meaning of the provision. There was also no material to show that the police seizure was made in the reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled. The explanation offered by the respondent was found to be plausible, and the circumstances did not justify drawing a presumption under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion: Section 123 was not attracted, the burden did not shift to the respondent, and the prosecution failed to establish guilt.

---